Review

In this Sony lens review I will be going over the all-in-one E-Mount PZ 18-105mm f/4 OSS G lens which is designed for the APS-C sensor sized cameras like the A6000 for example. I have lots of sample video, photos, and real world experience to share with you so strap in for this highly detailed review!

The SELP18105G lens goes for a fair price of ~$598 US in my opinion considering the features, range, and constant f/4 aperture. The lens is also fully self contained, so nothing protrudes out of the front when you zoom in or out. The front of the lens doesn’t rotate and is a 72mm thread, so if you want to use a polarizing filter (Clikc Here) it’s no problem at all.

Weighing in at almost a full pound (1.06 lb, or 482 g) , the E-Mount PZ 18-105mm f/4 OSS G lens is not exactly lightweight. In fact it’s pretty heavy for a lens considering how light the actual mirrorless e-mount cameras are these days. The size is also quite large at Approx. 3.07 x 4.33″ (78 x 110 mm).

Sony PZ 18-105mm f4 OSS G lens HD Video Review

Here is my highly detailed Sony PZ 18-105mm f4 OSS G lens video review, and I recommend watching even if you read this entire article. I have a lot of extra info in the video as I talk in Lightroom about the photos in detail.

27-158mm (35mm Equivalent)

Aperture Range: f/4 to f/22

Optical SteadyShot Image Stabilization

Two Extra-Low Dispersion Elements

Three Aspherical Elements

Handycam Zoom Performance

Zoom Lever for Zoom Speed Control

Constant f/4 Maximum Aperture

Circular Aperture Design

Sample Videos and Lens Testing

The Aquarium

Real World Sample Photos

First a few from the aquarium which shows off the great versatility and low light hand-holding abilities in my opinion:

Full Frame E-Mount A7/r/s??

Yes the PZ 18-105mm f/4 OSS G lens works on the full frame alpha e-mount cameras like the my A7r or the newer A7s for that matter. The camera will by default switch to crop factor mode, which is a great feature, but can also be left in full frame mode if you want. Corners will obviously not look good as the lens is designed for the smaller aps-c sized sensor, but it’s good to have the power and options I think.

Here is a quick snapshot I took of the A6000 with the old school Minolta MC 50mm f/1.4 Rokkor-X Lens mounted.

If you’re interested, you can pick up the Minolta MC Rokkor-X PG 50 F/1.4 Lens for ~$50 – $90 US on Ebay (Click Here) The RainbomImaging Lens adapter I’m using only cost ~$17.50 US, and you can get it @ Amazon (Click Here)

Sony A6000 and Minolta MC 50mm f/1.4 Rokkor-X Lens

Lab Testing Photos

Here are the Lab test photos at a variety of focal lengths and the standard apertures. Be sure to click on the images for the larger ~1100px versions! I used a tri-pod with the self-timer and turned off OSS for these images, just so you know.

18-105mm G lens vs 16-70mm Zeiss Lens?

I know a lot of you are wondering if the 18-105mm OSS G lens is a better deal than the Zeiss 16-70mm lens. Well, it is and isn’t to be perfectly honest. The optics of the Zeiss lens are significantly better and noticeable. F/4 on the Zeiss is sharp and f/4 on the 18-105mm lens is a little soft. The distortion on the Zeiss is somewhat noticeable at 16mm, but way more controlled than the G lens. The Zeiss lens is also significantly more compact, because it extends to zoom unlike the 18-105mm g lens. The contrast is also better on the Zeiss and the additional 2mm at the wide end is great for you landscape shooters. The Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 OSS lens goes for ~$998 US (My Review Click Here), and the 18-105mm G lens goes for ~$598. Clearly the 18-105mm lens is a better value for the dollar features wise, but not in optical quality when compared to the Zeiss 16-70mm lens.

Closing Remarks

Overall I would rate the Sony PZ 18-105mm f/4 OSS G lens at a 4 out of 5 star when factoring in all the real world and lab photos plus the sample video and user experience. The lens is a bit heavy for those weight conscious folks, and also quite large if your looking for the smallest form factor lenses available. In my opinion the SELP18105G lens is ideal for somebody who wants both killer video and photos without having to change the lens hardly ever. With an 18-105mm range, you can take all kinds of photos ranging from landscapes to portraits. The constant f/4 aperture and 3-speed variable zoom makes filming a breeze and a lot of fun as well. It really makes the movies a lot more pleasing to the eye when you add a nice slow zoom and panning effect for example. When using a camera slider, you can really get some special effects with a little practice and patience.

If you are not interested in video, then this lens is not the best option for you in my opinion. It’s a great lens for photography though, don’t get me wrong, its just the size and weight of the lens I am talking about. You could get the 55-210mm lens and get much more telephoto range in combination with the kit lens for much less money spent. That being said, the sel18105g is better than the kit lenses in the build quality department and the G optics are more consistent. It also has a wide all-in-one range that is appealing to any photographer. So, if the size and weight are not a concern, this is a very good lens for photography!

The Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 OSS lens on the other hand, is a better option for photographs, because it’s wider for landscapes, sharper, and has much better optical distortion control. The downside is it’s a lot more money and has less range which makes it hard to justify for many. It’s more of an investment thought that will stay with many camera bodies over the years . Once you use killer glass it’s hard to go back I must tell you from personal experience in the Canon L glass world. Same deal as Sony and Zeiss pretty much. The kit lenses from Sony are way better than the average kit lens from Canon by a long shot. So that is important to remember when I recommend the kit lenses that Sony’s are better than most for the money. That is the reason I push them so much even though the Zeiss and G lens in this case are better overall lenses.

That is about it for this Sony Lens review, and I really hope you got what you were looking for. Please feel free to ask questions or comment below as always!

Your support is greatly appreciated as we run this site in our spare time and are not paid. We can however, make a small commission if you click a product link that your interested in. That click will then give us credit if you choose to purchase any given item. This has no effect on the cost of the product, and is a simple way to give back to SonyAlphaLab.com for the effort and info we provide.

76 Comments

Thanks Jay for the in-depth review.
It has been a long wait for it and I greatly appreciate the time and effort.

I pretty much agree on most of what you said about the SELP18105G, except for the part about it being more of a video lens than a still photo lens.

Based on my experience or lack of it with the SEL18105G, I find the 18-105mm excellent for photos, even with it’s larger size. It still makes a great all around lens.

I have not used the 18-55mm, but do have the 16-50mm PZ and the 18-105mm is sharper from end to end.
I have the 55-210mm and I agree it is sharp, but only if lighting is ideal…like for mostly photos taken outdoors during the day.

The main reason why I purchase mine was to have a suitable replacement for my Sony Handycam HD camcorder and I think the SELP18105G does a wonderful job…plus delivering amazing photos too.

Even without the video ability, I think this is great lens for just stills due to its IQ and price over the PZ 16-70mm Zeiss. Their optical quality isn’t that much difference.
The PZ 16-70mm is not worth the additional $400 over the 18-105mm G and the 18-55/55-210mm isn’t an all-in-one and requires lens changing.

The SEL18105G is the better buy in my book.

I’m glad to be an owner of the SELP18105G!
Thanks again for your advice in helping me decide.

Thank you for the great comments and sharing your experience so far with the lens William!

You raised some excellent points, but the main reason people are switching from DSLR’s to mirrorless is for weight and size savings. I was referring to the size and weight plus powerzooming features. This does not mean the lens is bad for photos, just larger than it needs to be. The killer video features make the lens significantly larger and I was trying to highlight that point. I think I will go back and re-phrase that part a bit to make it more clear. I really wasn’t trying to negate the photo quality of the lens with those comments, so sorry about that.

The kit lens and 55-210mm combo is slower and requires a lens change, but they are really affordable, light weight, and much more reach. The 16-70mm f/4 Zeiss is not worth the money to a lot of people, but the fact is it’s better. The images look better through the higher quality Zeiss glass, and people who don’t have any interest in video, might prefer the smaller form factor option.

Again, it’s just my thoughts and I really appreciate you sharing yours!

That comment you made right there helped me decide the 18-105mm might be a better fit for me than the zeiss. Here’s to hoping Sigma comes out with their 18-55ish f2.8 in the future!

I own the 18-200mm and don’t really mind the size when I’m using it. Nothing like having the a6300 paired with my 20mm pancake though. I can fit that in my pants pocket! But I definitely agree that the main reason (my #1 reason) for picking a mirrorless is for size. So your point is very much valid. I am starting to get into video so it’s why i’m going with the 18-105mm. I don’t mind the size because the lens that stays on my camera over 50% of the time is the 50mm1.8. So I’ll deal with this one.

Quick question. How’s the power zoom? Please tell me it’s smoother than the one on the 16-50mm. I can’t use that one for video at all. It’s not slow enough.

Hi Cesar and yes this lens is a little sharper than the 16-50mm lens overall. The 16-50mm PZ lens is horrible in the corners at 16mm and not so good up to about 30mm. It’s very sharp in the center though and it does collapse pancake style though as a compromise 😉 It hard to really say which is better this or that. They both have advantages and the 18-105mm is better in versatility, low light, and build quality. It is larger, heavier, and costs significantly more money though as well. I have the 18-55mm and 55-210mm lenses which are great in my opinion considering the quality to cost ratio. So the two lenses is better for value to the dollar, but in the real world the 18-105mm lens is going to be perfect for a lot of people. Especially if you like making videos also 😉 It’s a lot of money over just getting the 55-210mm and having two lenses, so I don’t really know if it will be worth it to you. Do you mind changing lenses? Do you need faster than f/6.3 at the telephoto end of your lens? Does the size and weight of the 18-105mm concern you at all? These questions you really need to answer for yourself. Me personally, I have Canon L glass to use if I ever need to, so the 55-210 and 18-55mm is fine for me. If I did not have those lenses I would want the Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 OSS lens for that killer sharpness. As is I can use those lenses if I need it, so I can’t justify the money in my world.

I love my 55-210 but i was thinking to replace my 16-50PZ with this lens for everyday use, I know its bigger and heavier which i don’t mind; i also dont mind changing lenses, but sometimes you cant do it fast enough; in those cases i was using Clear Image Zoom, so i was thinking if i upgrade to this lens i could stop doing that.

My main concern was that i read in some amazon reviews that the lens at 18mm f4 was softer than the 16-50PZ, glad that you clarified that point

I’ll probably keep the 16-50PZ for when a smaller lens is needed

The Zeiss 16-70 does sound pretty good; but its mad expensive i could almost buy the a6000 body and the 18-108g for that much.

I think you will love the lens Cesar if you don’t mind the size and weight. That and the distortion is really the only issue that might be a concern as the lens is awesome otherwise in all areas 😉

The Zeiss is crazy money when you consider the cost of the camera I know. However, You must rent one or at least try a killer lens for a day before making serious judments on what the cost of that is. A killer lens creates a look that you can’t otherwise get. Zeiss has a certain look for example. That little bit extra is what people who can afford it and that can appreciate the quality output. These days i could never justify that kind of cash on a lens, but back in the day I was dropping thousands left and right on Canon L glass because it was so much better than the kit garbage. The images transformed into magic with some of the Canon L lenses for example. When I first saw that difference with my own eyes I was amazed at what a killer lens can do, and how little the actual camera sensor mattered in comparison. Now, you combined Sony sensors with Zeiss or in my case, Canon L optics via the metabones III lens adapter, and you have some top quality tools for the job!

Have a great day Cesar and thanks again for the comments and info on what you’re looking for and planning on doing,
Jay

I’ve been reading up on your website for a little over a year now since I started doing photography. I own a NEX-5 and I just rented the a6000 with the SELP18105G Lens for an indoor after looking at your review. This lens exceeded my expectations. I prefer the challenge of no-flash photography because it forces me to be creative. I must say that I obtained a lot of sharp images with this lens not only at the wedding, but also at the reception, where the lighting conditions were even worse. This lens definitely allowed me to get higher quality shots that I could not obtain with the SEL55210 lens. I encourage you to keep up the great work because I’ve definitely learned a lot from reading info on your site. When the time is right, I will definitely purchase this lens (and maybe an a6000 or its successor).

I’m really glad to hear you like the 18-105mm G lens and A6000 combination. It really is a great match and a ton of fun to use both units. I would not mind having this lens for the everyday activities or occasional family functions where I want to record video and have quality versatility for photos also.

I also prefer no flash whenever possible and the f/4 is significantly faster than the 55-210mm lens at the telephoto end. 105mm is also much easier to hand-hold than 210mm in really low light. The hit rate should be higher on the selp18105g lens in that scenario for sure!

Thanks again for the feedback and great points about the low light advantages the 18-105mm g lens has over the 55-210mm lens.

Thanks for the review… actually for your entire site. This is my first comment here although I have been reading your posts for a while, learning interesting nuances along the way. Your style and approach make things easier to grasp.

I currently own an older generation Sony “travel zoom” (HX9V) which takes reasonably good pictures and videos most of the time. Versatility and portability are nice. Low light limitations (ISO, lens speed, sensor size) can be a pain though. I have been on the lookout for new camera opportunities.

When the RX10 came out, I thought it might be my next camera. It seemed a very good all-around compromise but the fact that it was limited in reach (with no way to change lens) bugged me. I looked at the A7 but the price point was a bit too high for my taste. Then the A6000 came out and seemed to be the one model I was waiting for but the biggest question now becomes: what lens?

My summary of your comments (and others) and my interpretation:

16-50mm PZ (kit lens) is versatile, compact, somewhat soft (borderline bad?), kinda short and slow, inexpensive – a low end compromise that will not show the A6000 in its best light;

16-70mm Zeiss is more versatile, reasonably compact (but not in the “pocket-able” range), sharp and constantly fast, almost universal, very expensive – a high end product at a possibly unrealistic price and not the best fit for video;

18-105mm PZ (this review) is very versatile on the longer end, bulky, distorted (needs to be “fixed” in software that will degrade the frame and actually loose space on the short side – see your lab examples), sharp and constantly fast, somewhat universal and a good value for the price.

One of the nice thing about the Sony E-mount A6000 is its ability to interface with other brands of lenses. I have read over and over about the limited Sony lens inventory compared to, say, Canon or Nikon. I personally own several old Minolta SR-mount (MD lenses) and the prospect of reusing them is very interesting, knowing that I would loose on auto-focus and stabilization, turning the otherwise automated A6000 into a fully manual camera. I can live with this for “secondary” roles if the IQ is at par (for longer zoom higher speed optics – would it?). Still looking for the “primary” glass though. Would another brand (with an adapter) fill the void?

At this stage, the three previous lens are separated by about $400. I am somewhat tempted to low-ball it for now with the kit lens and wait for a better offering, from Sony or otherwise, and recommission my Minolta optics. If you had to give a sharpness grade to the three listed lenses, what would your appreciation be? I am trying to gauge how bad the kit lens is so I don’t get my hopes up too much…

Hi Stef and thank you very much for the comments and breakdown which is very accurate on each lens by the way 😉

I’m thinking you might miss the zoom that the HX9v had with the only the 16-50mm kit lens, or 18-55mm kit lens. So, I would recommend at least getting the 55-210mm also just to cover the range at as low cost possible. After that you want an 18-200mm for convenience purposes, or you may want to go the other way with prime lenses for maximum quality. Time will tell I think in that regard.

I hope that helps and please feel free to ask more questions anytime 😉

Thanks for your response. Considering that I have the following Minolta SR-mount lenses:

50mm f/1.7
28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
70-210mm f/2.8/4
135mm f/2.8

I think that I am well covered on the longer end, assuming that the optic quality of the past holds up to the A6000 sensor. I have been told in a camera store that the older lenses are no match for today’s camera (vested interest in selling new gear?) but your article about the Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.4 and numerous comments say otherwise. I am willing to give this a shot. I am also juggling with the idea of a Metabones SpeedBooster. Maybe that would close the entire lens issue?

I realize that no lens discussed here will match the HX9V reach. I was just reading about the Tamron 16-300mm though and that may add another option. Have you tried it, compared with a 18-200mm? The range that I normally operate at is 25-150mm (FF equivalent) but I occasionally capture birds or the moon. Quite a bit of macro work also lately. In general, few videos.

In normal cases, the 18-105mm you reviewed would seem like a good fit for me but the “distortion” part really annoys me. Is there another brand (with an adapter) that would have a better lens with equivalent coverage (better yet with 16mm)? Is this line of thinking reasonable or should I stick with Sony offerings (and maybe wait)?

Thanks for your insight and practical view. Sorry about so many different questions all at once but I am trying to cover all angles.

Considering your lens line-up I think you will fine with the reach assuming you want to carry around those heavy lenses 😉 The optical quality should hold up well based on my experience with the older lenses. Focus peaking works awesome!

If you really want the best all arounder, the Zeiss 16-70mm lens the one to save for honestly. As much as the cost hurts, it’s an amazing lens and gives excellent results across the whole range, even @ f/4.

I agree the distortion on the selp18105g is annoying and costs this lens big time ion the overall rating. It was excellent other than the f/4 slight softness and distortion.

If you want to go down the A-Mount lens road by using the LA-EA1 or LA0EA2 lens adapter, then yes the Tamron 16-300mm and the like would be a great option. The optical quality on those all-in-one monsters is not that great, but will have less distortion than the Sony I bet. Sharpness wide-open is often poor though. Perhaps not on the newer units, but I had a Tamron 18-300mm yeas ago and it was soft wide open. Greast lens otherwise though with killer range.

I hope that helps a little and remember it’s a very difficult decision, so taking your time and re-searching is very wise on your part!

I actually commented on the prior thread.. but my question is. Have you tried the DxO labs correction for this lens? I bought this lens when it was released and returned it. I realize this is a G lens and not a zeiss lens. In my hands, I felt wide open the lens was okay. When i stopped it down the lens was rather good considering the price and zoom range. The main deal killer for me was the distortion. In camera, the correction was pretty poor and it led to a noticable reduction in resolution. Lightroom did a MUCH better job of correcting the distortion. I still found the distortion unsettling even with this correction. I think if they had designed this lens with a bit less distortion it might have been easier to correct. (Remember a typical zoom has distortion which varies across the zoom range.)
Jay have you tried the DxO pack for lightroom with this lens? If they did a better job correcting the distortion, I would probably be up for buying an A6000 and this lens. As an alternative have you tested an the newish sigma 24-105 F4 DG OS HSM with an LA-EA2/4?

No I have not tried the DxO software lately. If you want I can send you a few raw files to play with? I really don’t have the money or time to try out new software I’m sorry. I would guess the program works as good as Lightroom if not better based on reputation.

This sounds good to me. Just send me some raw files at various zoom ranges. The f stop/exposure should not matter. Ideally, something with “straight” lines at the edges horizontal and vertical. I can run them through DXO and see how they look.

Jay,
Great review! I didn’t see much distortion in your video samples, but I may not know what to look for to see it. I am looking at getting the a7s, and as a video lens, this thing is almost ideal. But of course I’m not sure what this lens will do to a full frame sensor. (And I do want to preserve as much depth of field as I can as I do primarily interview style video.)

Is there by any chance a converter that will allow these APS-C lenses to cooperate better with a full frame sensor?

The camera corrects for the distortion for the video, so you don’t really see much at all. Similar to the Jpeg files for the photos thee camera corrects it for you.

The A7s is incredible and I would much rather have it than my A7r, it’s that much better. The SELP18105g lens will work on the A7s really well, but in crop factor mode. You will lose some depth of field compared to the full frame sensor for sure, but the lens will still do a good job. A full frame powerzoom is coming 28-135mm lens is coming and that will clearly be the best option for the A7s as far as a native lens. Cost will probably be around $1500 I’m thinking, but could be totally wrong about that.

Their is not converter that I know of to do what you are asking. The do make the speed booster lens adapters to use a full frame lens on the smaller sensors cameras and get an advantage. However, going the other way requires more light and larger optics is really the only way to get that sensor coverage. I suppose some kind of lens magnifier could work, but I have never heard of one.

How is the 16-70 for video. It is stabilized, and I shoot a fair amount. I like the range of the 18-105, but I am scared off by the size a bit. Also, from the samples I have seen, I love the way the Zeiss renders an image. I am having a hard time with the extra $$.

The 16-70mm lens is not bad for video, because it has OSS built in. Zooming is a bit harder though being manual obviously. Optical quality is better on the Zeiss for sure, so yes the video footage could be better depending. Photography wise, the Zeiss is noticeable sharper at f/4, in the corners, plus has great distortion control. Price is still hard to justify, because in the real world both lenses produce great results, but the Zeiss just has that better rendered look to it. Optical quality really does make a difference and gives a more pleasing look to the scene. It’s hard to put a price tag on that Scott, but I hear ya!

I bought the 18-105G recently as a high quality replacement for the 18200LE. What are your thoughts on the 18-105 vs 16-70Z if it was sharper at F4? I ask because I can’t say I’m experiencing the level of softness you saw wide open at 18mm at F4. Also, it was one of the main reasons you recommend the 16-70z over it. I was regretting not getting the 16-70z after experiencing the distortion…doubly so as a part of me wants to get the 70-200 F4 FE to make up for the loss of tele once I sell the 18200LE (FL overlap).

What are your thoughts on distortion for portraits? Using OOC JPG or LR profile, are people ‘straightened’ to look like how they are meant to look?

Yes the Zeiss was noticeable sharper @ f/4 and 18mm. Your sample photo looks like the results I was getting with the Zeiss honestly 😉 Perhaps my lens copy is a little softer, or did you apply some sharpening?

Distortion for Portraits is not really a problem if you use the lens profile, but a lens with little distortion, like the Zeiss, would obviously be better. The corrected distortion is not to bad, and Lightroom does a better job than the on camera profile in my opinion, but both are good. All my Layla photos looked fine to me and not weird or anything.

Hi Jay,
I’m using Sony nex 6 and have Sigma 19mm f2.8 Art series and sigma 30mm 2f.8 art series. I also have the 55-210mm as well. I’m somehow tired of changing lens. I don’t know if the Sony 18-105 is sharper than my 2 sigma lens. Do you think it sharper at 19 and 30mm given at f4? furthermore do you think constant f4 is enough for taking indoor or all around purpose type? After your review, I like I want to sell my sigma lens and upgrade to this G lens

Ni I don’t think the 18-105mm G lens is sharper than the Sigma Primes, especially at f/4!

Nowadays, f/4 is possible for most situations using the A6000 in my opinion. Even the super low light Aquarium footage came out excellent in my opinion. Mind you, I’m no video pro and the full frame a7s is much better in that regard!

This lens is great, but it’s hard to compete with prime lenses in most cases. Real world the images look great is the bottom line Harry, but if you pixel peep, the primes will be sharper at f/4!

Hi
I have a A6000 with the SEL 18-200 and the 16mm pancake for my old nex5
On the reviews of the A6000, when focusing, you have the tiny dancing squares of the super fast hybrid AF but on my camera, I only have the big old green squares like on the Nex
Is that because of the lense?
I Know it’s just a detail but the little dancing squares are just so cool

You had me laughing at “I Know it’s just a detail but the little dancing squares are just so cool”

I totally understand and that is why I wanted them also 🙂 You may need to update the lenses, but I think it’s just the option for the Hybrid AF points. You need to turn that on to see them, because it does clutter the screen a bit more and Sony decided to have them off by default I guess.

It should be called the Phase Detection AF Area, but I can’t seem to find it in the Sony help guides for some reason unfortunately. It’s there though somewhere!

You have to change your focus mode to AF-C, which stands for autofocus-continuous. I believe your focus mode is currently set to AF-A, which is automatic.

The big green squares are contrast-detect points, and the tiny dancing ones are phase detection points. The a6000 has more phase-detection points that contrast-detect points so it works better and faster.

Howdy jay I have a question….
I mostly use my sony 50mm/1.8, but i really should bring a zoom to disneyworld…
I was wondering how you think the sony G zoom compares to some sigma zoom options with the LA-EA2.

The Sony G lens is not as good optically as the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM AF Lens, but is closer to the 17-70mm I would say. Love that lens by the way! 😉

The size is my only beef with that set-up, especially over using the Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 OSS lens? Granted the adapter does open up more doors and allow for cheaper larger lenses. I prefer the smaller size and lower weight, but if you don’t mind that and no OSS, the adapter is a great option.

I would rather have the selp18105g lens, but the extended range of the 18-200mm can be important if you are only using one lens. It really is a hard decision if only having one lens! It’s really a toss up Dewl, because I could see my self going for the 18-200mm over the 18-105mm g if I could only take one lens. However, I would take the Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 over both of those for the killer output quality. So, in the end if I had to pull the trigger I would go with the 18-105mm g lens I think because the powerzoom is awesome for video, and the lens is really well made with no extending zoom. The constant f/4 aperture is also a great feature.

Hi, thanx for this answer
Well, I went into the whole menu of the a6000
No changes, the big squares are still there
I Think it’s indeed a problem with the lens, so I’m about to order the E PZ 18-105 f4 OSS G to replace my old SEL 18-200 and finally get my cooler little green dancing squares!

Now I Have a new problem (I’m Sorry)
I’m a bit sick with the official accessories of the E mounted ILC, it’s a bit expansive, and sometimes it lacks of performance
Do you have any unofficial video light for the a6000 to propose?

I have used 18-105/4G all this summer now and happy I have it. I prefere 18105G over 1670CZ too because of longer zoom. 18mm (27mm FF) is enough for my needs. Sharpness is good enough. Colors are great. OSS is great. Constant barrel length is great. It feels like longer prime in the hand. Great with NEX7. If can be carried in the belt bag with no probelms.

Yeah, it is a close call between those two lenses John. I would rather have the larger range I suppose, but the 18-200mm powerzoom is really large physically.. That is the only downside I can think of other than the variable aperture… The 18-105mm is a constant f/4 which is better for video.

FYI: I ended up picking up the 18-105g again after a few cracks at the 16-70 (Do they do ANY QC for a 1000$ lens? How can a company charge this much money and send out so many duds.) The second copy of the 18-105g is much better than the first. The corners are still weak but the center is damn sharp. After a great deal of testing, I have realized the corners are actually sharp…. BUT the focus plane is not a plane. By this I mean the whole focal volume looks more like a concave lens. So in actual use the corners look MUCH better than they do shooting test charts. This is exactly what you would expect from a highly distorted lens. Also, the edge resolution is poor but improves as the distortion decreases. I would be much happier if sony would make a lens like the 16-50 f/2.8 in Emount. I find I still mostly shoot primes but the 18-105 range gives alot options as a travel lens. When combined with a nissin i40 you can shoot pretty much anywhere.

Cracks in the 16-70 Zeiss?? What the heck? That is really shocking! The 18-105mm G lens is a highly distorted lens, which is why the focal plane is not flat as you said 😉 Especially at the minimum focus distance wide open @ f/4. When shooting raw when the lens was first re-leased, the distortion was really bad. Sony re-leased firmware updates that corrected this since I reviewed the lens I beleive. I could be wrong about that, but I know other lenses have been updated after I reviewed them. Specifically the raw file distortion and corner issues.

Hi Jay,
I have the a6000 with the 16-50 kit lens, Sigma 30/2.8 Art and Minolta Rokkors 50/1.4, 128/3.5 and I am really looking for one/two lens solutions with excellent bokeh.

I do not see too much difference between the outputs from the latest OIS enabled Note5/iPhone6s compared to the SEL1650 kit lens. The reason to still have the SEl1650 is that it fits in the pocket.

I tinkered for a little while with the LA-EA2 adapter with A-Mount 50/1.7 and 35-70/f4 but I did not like the experience much, so sold them off. I really like the Canon T6s/70d with the 18-135 STM and the new 50/1.8STM lenses instead of the a6000+LA-EA2+A-Mount lens combination.

For $1500, I can get a used 6d with 24-105F4L, so I really do not see much value in investing in $1000 Zeiss lenses such as the 16-70 F4.

What lens do you suggest for a budget of $500. Do you think that the combination of Sony 50/1.8($200 used) and 55-210mm($160 used) present a better value than the $550 18-105G lens.

Great questions Nazi and really sorry for the delayed reply. Yes both the E-Mount 50mm f/1.8 and 55-210mm would be my recommendation over just the one the 18-105mm g lens. The 50mm f/1.8 OSS Lens will produce a great bokeh and the 55-210mm will give you tremendous range if required? If you don’t need the range, then the 18-105mm g lens or 16-70mm Zeiss would be a better option. The 55-210mm lens does not have the best bokeh, but it’s not bad either. The Zeiss produces the best “bokeh/ look” I would say out of these lenses and the price reflects that…

Hi Jay,
I have also the a6000 with the selp18105G. I am very pleased with this combination for almost all my photo’s. But recently I noticed that when the lens isn’t powered and you sake it or rotate it you will feel something moving inside olmost like the sigma art lenses. When I power up everything works perfect zoom,AF,… Is this normal or do I have to sent it to Sony.
Thanks in advance, George.
P.S. in live chat with sony support they claimed that this is normal for this lens.

Yes, this is normal because it’s a floating focus element that causes this effect. The Sigma lenses due the same thing and that is when I first noticed this phenomenon… Nothing to worry about, but I would handle the lens with care as always of course regardless 😉

Hi Blake and thanks for the kind words 😉 It is a hard decision between the two powerzooms, but the size of the 18-200mm is really the biggest difference. Optical quality is a little better on the 18-200mm as far as distortion goes as well. The 18-105mm is fairly compact considering it’s range, constant f/4 aperture, OSS built in, and all internal design.

If you need the extra range, then the 18-200mm would be a better option in my opinion, but otherwise I think the 18-105mm would be a more reasonable choice for the size. What do you plan on filming?

Thank you for taking the time to write the reviews, they are very helpful.
I don’t know much about lenses. I would like to know what is the difference between the SELP18200 or the SEL18200LE
I’m interested in these lenses for the super zoom but I’m concerned about the image quality and speed.
I’m planning to use it on the a6000 mainly for photos and I don’t want to be changing lenses.

Hi Jay,
I’m glad to see that the conversation is still open after more than two years. Having my a6000 since eight weeks now, primarily aiming for photography, I used it already several times for taking videos. I was really surprised of the quality at low light, compared to my FHD video cam. To replace my vcam however needs a bit more of zoom, and here we go with the 18105 and your excellent review.
So far I have worked with the 16-50 kit lens, which is really good compared to other kits, really takes fine pictures. Used for video, it provides excellent focus tracking, but the zooming is really an issue. What I made the best experience with is, not controlling the zoom by the power zoom button but directly twisting the lens ring. I have a fine control of the speed with this, can precisely set the zoom factor I like best. Still, the zoom is driven by the electronic drive, which makes it a bit tricky to start zooming without a small kind of jump. But then, it only depends on how smooth the ring is moved. With that, I would not rate the 1650 too bad for video.
Sorry for the many words, meant just to show the situation. My simple question after all is, with the 18-105, can you also control the zoom with turning a lens ring, and does it follow smoothly? On your video I thought to see some slight ripples like with a step motor, but I’m not sure if this was my player or my paranoia …
Thanks again for the detailed review and for still replying after this long time.
Regards, Robert

Hi Robert and thanks for the question and background info 😉 Yes you can turn the zoom ring on the lens and it can go smoothly if you go smoothly. The toggle is a variable speed, so once you get the hang of it, it’s fairly easy to go a constant speed of your choice. The lens is excellent for video and I don’t think you will be disappointed at all, especially since you thought the 16-50mm lens did a decent job for video! The 18-105mm f/4 OSS G lens is a huge upgrade from the kit lens!

I have just bought an A6500 and found your site a brilliant resource. Thank you.
Does the 16 – 50mm lens have variable speed like the 18 – 105 and is the variable speed operated by how quickly you push the zoom slider?

I am principally interested in video so thinking the 18 – 105 will be great. I see on the 18 – 200 there is a switch to control the speed of the zoom on the lens but it doesn’t appear on these other two lenses hence the question.

I also intend on purchasing a hand held gimbal so would the zoom on the camera connect and be controlled by the gimbal controls? Do you have any recommendations for gimbals for the Sony camera and the larger lenses and I see some of the cheaper ones have auto balance weight limitations.

After looking at your reviews, I’m getting ready to pick this 18-105G lens; one of the user comments on the Zeiss 16-70 mentioned serious quality control issues and that led me to find many other complaints online about its production quality, so it’s not a gamble I’d take.

But I found an online store that throws in the 55-210 zoom in their package for very low cost and that led me to read your 2012 review of that lens. You gave it a 4.5/5 for image quality, same as the 16-70 Zeiss, while this 18-105 rates only 4/5 on image quality.

Since those reviews are spaced 2 years apart, I’m wondering: do you still feel those ratings reflect the differences in these lenses?

Sorry for the delayed reply and great question. My ratings are based on overall value for the dollar, so that is why the rating is so high. The optics of the E 55-210mm are awesome considering the cost of the lens. Way better than most lenses in that price range I would say. It’s not near as good optically as the 16-70mm Zeiss lens though. Just look at the sample photos and you can clearly see the difference. I hope that helps,

Jay, another advantage of the 18-105G over the Zeiss 16-70 is internal zooming which limits migration of dirt and water into the lens. I’ve used my 18-105 in harsh desert dust storms and light steady rain without any penetration of the lens, though the attached Nex-7 body did suffer. In challenging conditions I now use it on a weather sealed a6500 with gaffer tape over the lens mount (and if really wet ad a rain sleeve). After years and much travel the inner elements of my 18-105 remain clean.